Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Devar writes "Japan and the European Space Agency have revealed their plans for a joint mission to Mercury that would be the first to land a probe on its surface. The mission also includes two orbiters to map the surface, all due to be launced in 2010."

Oh sure, that's what you say now. But what about in the future when operating systems get larger and more complex? I predict that in 20 years it'll take 60+ days just to boot the OS on the probe. (At least if they're still using 8088 chips on those things)

Maybe you weren't aware of this, I'm not sure, but unlike the moon, this planet rotates, so what comes after night? *wait for it* DAY! WEEEE!

Actually the moon, like all bodies, rotates just like Mercury. Like the Moon, Mercury's rotation is in sync with the Sun so the same side is always lit. You have one side that is always blazingly hot, one side that is freezing, freezing cold.

Nice sig. If you disagree, reply, don't moderate. I disagree with your post. Mercury does not always keep the same side towards the sun. One side is hot and the other is cold because Mercury has no atmosphere, which would otherwise distribute the heat more evenly. Another poster replied to the same parent with the proper answer [slashdot.org], and posted before you did. If I was a moderator, I'd mod your post Redundant so people would be more likely to see only the post with the correct information.

A) Mercury does rotate. However, your "proper answer" got it wrong; while Mercury rotates on its axis every 58.6 days, it's moved a long way around the sun in that same time. As a result, it's day (period between one sunrise and the next) takes longer than its rotation period [arizona.edu]. In fact, it takes about 3 rotations to get one 'day'. Also, because of the elliptical orbit and long rotation period, you can get a funky double-sunset effect [nasa.gov], when the sun sets, then rises again

Why did they choose Mercury? Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty cool, but why not some of the other planets in our system? Scientists are fascinated with Mars because of the possibility of life. There's fascination about Saturn and it having a bazillion moons. Jupiter with it's nutty red spot (man that's a hell of a storm).

So why Mercury? Especially considering the difference between the hottest daytime temps and the coldest night temps...

There have been many missions to Venus and Mars, a few flybys of Jupiter (and Galileo orbiting Jupiter). Saturn and beyond have only flybys so far, but it takes a long time to get to them. Mercury is relatively close, is close to the sun so solar power can be used (avoiding silly controversy over nuclear power sources) and has only had one spacecraft look at it, from mainly one angle. Also, it's not the moon, but a "new" world to explore. All in all, it's a nice place to send a few robots to prove one's technology and show off, and get useful new results in a reasonable amount of time.

All in all, it's a nice place to send a few robots to prove one's technology and show off

It is, the only problem being that it's really, really hot. As far as I understand, you have to have a reflective shield turned to the Sun at all times, and even so, your electronics are in for a very rough ride. This makes soft-landing much harder for surface probes, unless you land on the shaded side. Impact landing should be easier, but doesn't collect nearly as much information. Even worse, once you soft-land, you

Why did they choose Mercury? Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty cool, but why not some of the other planets in our system? Scientists are fascinated with Mars because of the possibility of life. There's fascination about Saturn and it having a bazillion moons. Jupiter with it's nutty red spot (man that's a hell of a storm).

Well, at the moment, ESA has a mission going to Mars (Mars Express), Venus shortly (Venus Express), Saturn is covered by Huygens (in combination with Cassini).

Nothing is going to Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto at the moment, but most of those are real buggers to get to easily.

Mercury is the only planet in the inner solar system which ESA hasn't sent anything to yet (or is about to). Add to that the fact that so little is known about it, Mariner 10 left many questions unanswered, and it's about time we had a look.

For a low cost mission Mercury is probably your best bet. There's no atmosphere to speak of, and external propulsion won't have to be terribly elaborate, because the sun's gravity will do most of the work. Also, as the two posters above me mentioned, very little has been studied about Mercury. On a more scientific note, mercury is the perfect place to study the effects of extreme heat and gravity on a planet and the inorganic substances that exist there. Moreover, it can provide more information about t

Even though they don't mention the name, this sounds likes they are talking about BepiColombo [esa.int] which has been in the works for several years now.

One of the more exciting bit about the mission is the lander (or impactor, depending) which is one of the things which distinguishes it from the US Messenger. Unfortunately, this is also one of the elements most likely to be removed, due to cost and complexity.